6 The Dublin Public Dinner to Lord Morpeth. [Jan. 
to the wind. The argument from Alfred goes for nothing, unless it be 
shown that popery raised the constitution. 
The next instance is Magna Charta ; and there undoubtedly Langton, the 
Romish bishop, figured at the head of the barons. But what is the history 
of Magna Charta? In the first place, it was extorted from the king in 
consequence of the irresistible feeling of national contempt for his sub- 
mission to tle papal legate. It was no favour of the Pope. It was the 
result of the discovery, by the barons, that they might insist, to any extent, 
on the weakness and baseness of a monarch, who suffered an impudent 
Italian actually to trample the British crown under his feet. And what 
must have been the papal respect for the independence of nations, or the 
freedom of man, when it commanded such an iusult? What must have 
been the political slavery which it imposed on the English throne, as on 
all thrones, when such an insult could be conceived and offered with 
impunity? The papal vassalage exceeded all that history has ever known 
of vassalage beside. But the barons dreamed of nothing beyond increas- 
ing their own privileges. The introduction of popular rights into Magna 
Charta was simply to swell their authority over a falling crown. Popery 
was not in question. Yet what was the papal will on the occasion. 
The transaction roused all its wrath. Even Magna Charta looked too 
like an approach to liberty, to be suffered by the power whose throne was 
established on the principle of universal tyranny. By a Romish rescript, 
the “ Great Charter” was declared wholly null and void ; King and Barons 
were devoted to the curses of the “ keeper of the keys of Heaven and 
hell,” if they did not instantly abjure it ; and the popish bishop, Langton 
himself, was placed under a suspension. The barons were severally 
placed under excommunication ; their lands were laid under an interdict, 
and on the city of London was pronounced anathema. 
The argument from Kdward the First, the famous founder, or rather 
‘yeformer of parliaments, is equally extravagant. Edward was a habitual 
warrior ; a bold, and sagacious prince, who; like many a man of sense in 
his own time, and since, saw enough in the popedom to repel and scorn 
its interference in his own affairs. This he showed in his answer to the 
papal mandate against his invasion of Scotland :—* Let me hear no 
more of this,” was the reply of the indignant soldier : “ or I shall destroy 
Scotland from sea to sea.” 
The historic truth is, that at various periods of our government, men 
of determined characters rose up, who moved straight to their objects of 
good or evil, without asking themselves what a sovereign a thousand 
miles off, and still more remote, by the difficulty of communication in 
those days, thought about their proceedings. Human nature, even under 
the most abject habits of slavery, will sometimes be stirred up, and take 
advantage of an opportunity to slip off the chain, when it cuts to the 
bone. But the papacy still held the chain with 4 tremendous grasp, 
never lost sight of the principle of extinguishing all freedom of thought, 
and looked upon every attempt at self-legislation as an impiety, to be 
_ punished alike by the sword here, and the flame in the world to come. 
And where has Popery been paramount that it has not trampled out _ 
the life of Freedom? We may at this hour pronounce the rank of free 
dom in any country by its greater or less obedience to popery. France, © 
from its higher civilization, and still more, from the infusion of Protest- 
antism among its people, has been for ages the most reluctant continental 
subject of popery. France is at this hour the only popish nation that has 
